Scientists Reported to Be in Touch with Aliens

[MiamiHeat]

Why do you believe the Big Bang is the only way to explain expansion?

[The Reckoning]

Why do you believe the Big Bang is the only way to explain expansion?

mostly all of the Big Bang model predictions have been affirmed.

Hubble's Law shows that galaxies have been traveling apart for 13.6 billion years, and were concentrated at one point.

we see radiation left over from the explosion.

formation of hydrogen and helium had to begin somewhere, and Big Bang nucleosynthesis explains this as well as the present day density of luminous matter in the universe.

its a viable model, whether you believe so or not.

most astronomers and physicists agree with it. believers and non-believers alike.

[lil'mo]

This guy's good!

[MiamiHeat]

its a viable model, whether you believe so or not.

most astronomers and physicists agree with it. believers and non-believers alike.

Big Bang seems wrong, computers to blame
Monday, 24 July 2006

by Brad Hamilton
Cosmos Online
Big Bang seems wrong, computers to blame


SYDNEY, 24 July 2006 - If current computer simulations are anything to go by, the Big Bang is wrong, according to cosmologists. But the experts aren't throwing away the theory just yet, they're blaming the computers.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/4...omputers-blame

[MiamiHeat]

Carl Sagan wrote :

"There is nevertheless a nagging su ion among some astronomers, that all may not be right with the deduction, from the redshift of galaxies via the Doppler effect, that the universe is expanding. The astronomer Halton Arp has found enigmatic and disturbing cases where a galaxy and a quasar, or a pair of galaxies, that are in apparent physical association have very different redshifts...."

Sagan continues, "If Arp is right, the exotic mechanisms proposed to explain the energy source of distant quasars -- supernova chain reactions, supermassive black holes and the like -- would prove unnecessary. Quasars need not then be very distant. But some other exotic mechanism will be required to explain the redshift. In either case, something very strange is going on in the depths of space."

[MiamiHeat]

its a viable model, whether you believe so or not.

We all know how science works.

We see a hole in a water pipe, and we think of a way to patch it up.

We think up a good patch, one that we apply and test to see if it works. For now, the water is plugged up. The patch is working. Does it mean it's the correct patch to stop the leaking?

Anyway...

after some years, or a new discovery, a new observation, suddenly that patch that was working before, yeah, it has leaks now. Water is leaking from the pipe again, and we need to patch it once again.

Slap on another patch that works.

Just because it is a viable model does not mean anything.

Big Bang has a TON of problems.

What the Priest George Lemaitre did was poison science with a moment of creation.

[The Reckoning]

Big Bang seems wrong, computers to blame
Monday, 24 July 2006

by Brad Hamilton
Cosmos Online
Big Bang seems wrong, computers to blame


SYDNEY, 24 July 2006 - If current computer simulations are anything to go by, the Big Bang is wrong, according to cosmologists. But the experts aren't throwing away the theory just yet, they're blaming the computers.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/4...omputers-blame

read the rest of the article.


"Such discrepancies are likely due to the limits of modern computers, rather than any particular flaw in the predictions of Big Bang inflationary cosmology.
Gas dynamics that determine how matter settles into galaxies and collapses from there to form much denser stars; and how stellar winds and explosions stir up the remaining gas and control the rate at which new stars form are concepts that are far too complex for current programs, the authors said.
"The simulations invoke many parameters to describe the four per cent of the universe that is made up of baryonic matter [the particles that make up stars, people and so on]," But they said the simulations were not nearly as comprehensive for dark matter and dark energy, which make up the remaining 96 per cent of the universe.
So computer simulations are not about to revolutionise the way we think about the formation of galaxies. "I think we are a long way from achieving this," said Bland-Hawthorn. "There is so much more physics that needs to be included. It will be 10 to 20 years before we get this right."

[MiamiHeat]

Yeah, I read the rest of it. Why do you assume I didn't?

They basically blame the computers, they say it's likely that everything will be fine, etc.


Reality will hit continue them in the face though. Big Bang, she is wrong!

[The Reckoning]

sorry my connection died before i was able to elaborate on my response.


of course the Big Bang model isn't perfect, and neither has any model for the most part.

newton improved on kepler's laws, einstein improved on newton's laws, etc. to make more accurate measurements and predictions, but the laws weren't "proven wrong".

the Big Bang still needs some polishing, but it has stood the test of time, and i'd bet that there have been many astronomers who have attempted - and unsuccessfully - to debunk it.

in the instance of the computer models, they aren't perfect, but they do (as your article states)
include "galaxies which resemble neighbouring Andromeda and our own Milky Way, "adding to the evidence that our picture for the evolution of the universe is on the right track,"' so the simulations are fuzzy but not wrong.

how can a computer simulate the chaos of supernovas and other like phenomenon? of course its going to be a little off. also the article was in 2006. its now 2010, so computers could be far more advanced by now.

the Big Bang remains the strongest theory for now, and as far as i know, there's more polishing than debunking going on.

looks like it's here for a long while.

[BacktoBasics]

The fact that they've successfully recreated 99.9% of the big bang alone gives it credibility. They spent what? 8 billion creating the LHC to solve the remaining .01%. I think it has a reasonable leg to stand on. Even if they uncover a million more mysteries pertaining to the big bang there is still a ton of tangible evidence of value there.

[DarkReign]

which is also not possible because time is an invention of humanity.

Incorrect. Time is an absolute reality, albeit one that is subject to the same distortions that length, width and depth are up against.

[mouse]

Hate to be the one to bust up your big bang party you have going but....

It's a scientific fact that when something explodes all particles rotate in the same direction.

many planets in our solar system don't rotate in the same direction.

Most of the planets in our solar system do rotate counter clockwise - except for Venus (clockwise), Uranus (rotates on its side) and Pluto

"So much for your big bang" theory!

[mouse]

Hubble's Law shows that galaxies have been traveling apart for 13.6 billion years, and were concentrated at one point.
.

First off 13.6 Billion years is not accurate. Scientist "believe" "assume" and "guess" on the age of planets and solar systems. They end up quoting some other scientist. Most scientist today are still arguing over how old the grand canyon really is and you have the nerve to think these same fools know how old a galaxy is millions of miles from earth?

and were concentrated at one point.
.

I'm glad you bring this up. Scientist on one hand say the solar system is billions of years old and at the same time they try to calculate how much time it takes for the rings of Saturn to spread out or the distance the moon drifts apart from the earth.

Given the time they allow for the Saturn and the moon it doesn't match up to their own theories. For example it is a known fact the moon drifts from the earth at a rate of almost 2 inches a year. If the earth is 4 billion years old that would put the moon to close to the earth for the big bang theory to hold water.

It seems your so called big bang theory is really a big dud!

[MiamiHeat]

I can't believe it.

I agree with mouse for once. oh man

[Dr. Gonzo]

MiamiHeat's avatar freaks me out.

[MiamiHeat]

Incorrect. Time is an absolute reality, albeit one that is subject to the same distortions that length, width and depth are up against.

Incorrect. I can do that too, see?

Time is an illusion, a creation of mankind. The universe only exists in the present.

If you were in space, and just floated there in one spot staring at the sun, it would be a never ending moment of meditation. Everything just 'existing' in the present. There is no future or past.


The rotation of the earth created the illusion of time for mankind. You have no argument against this.

We made it up. We use this idea of time to measure distances, how 'long' it takes something to travel from point A to B, or how many rotation's of the earth from now will we go to the movies, or at what position of the Sun in the sky will we go to eat lunch? but it's all the present. We put a number to these things, to measure it, but it doesn't really exist.

[Ignignokt]

who is the dude in your avatar?

[mouse]

who is the dude in your avatar?

Its Andrew Dice Clay's brother.

[Ignignokt]

i was thinking it was a wrestler.

What's the guy's name?

[mouse]

i was thinking it was a wrestler.

What's the guy's name?

André René Roussimoff

[DarkReign]

Its Nicholas Cage with the freakiest Gene Simmons haircut ever. I constantly tell MH he has the spookiest avatar on ST. It be true.

[thispego]

Incorrect. I can do that too, see?

Time is an illusion, a creation of mankind. The universe only exists in the present.

If you were in space, and just floated there in one spot staring at the sun, it would be a never ending moment of meditation. Everything just 'existing' in the present. There is no future or past.


The rotation of the earth created the illusion of time for mankind. You have no argument against this.

We made it up. We use this idea of time to measure distances, how 'long' it takes something to travel from point A to B, or how many rotation's of the earth from now will we go to the movies, or at what position of the Sun in the sky will we go to eat lunch? but it's all the present. We put a number to these things, to measure it, but it doesn't really exist.

Incorrect. Time is still elapsing no matter where you are. It doesn't have to be within the confines of a 24-hour day. But every milisecond, things are getting older.

[z0sa]

Plus, einstein got several things wrong.

His greatest accomplishment was e=mc2, which by the way, he STOLE. he was NOT the first to discover it, he stole it from his idol, the man he looked up to..... but he sure did get all the credit.

Wrong. it WAS published before Einstein by some 18 months, but he actually redeveloped it extensively. The two ideas have been described as "dissimilar." Just check google and wikipedia for this you dumbass. It wasn't even his mentor at all, just some random Italian industrialist, who did not even share many of his same conclusions with Einstein.

so to act liek z0sa, and use his work as a Bible is wrong.

Uh, no. Most of his work that is used today has be affirmed and reaffirmed countless times. You are in denial.

Yeh, i'm just telling z0sa.

He used relativity theory as a Bible against what I said, which is ignorant.

Deny deny deny.

by the way, I will say that I admired Einstein for standing up to the fraud who poisoned us with the Big Bang Theory.

Oh really?

"After the Belgian detailed his theory, Einstein stood up, applauded, and is supposed to have said, 'This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.' " - Wikipedia

How badly you fail.

A Priest who polluted science with a 'moment of creation', Einstein saw right through him.

Right. See above. It's always about religion with you. It's poisoned your mind. Your thoughts and actions must always wonder to the furthest extreme. You simply can't agree with any ideas that might lend credence to a higher being or creation.

which will tell you I also think the Big Bang is wrong.

What's the Cosmic Microwave Background? Where did it come from?

If you actually knew anything at all, you'd know one of the biggest reasons the Big Bang theory was initially accepted was the theory predicted the existence of said invisible rays before they were even discovered.

What theory do you have that explains this field's existence across the universe?

Why do you believe the Big Bang is the only way to explain expansion?

We're waiting for your expert opinion.

Or do you not have one?

[The Reckoning]

Hate to be the one to bust up your big bang party you have going but....

It's a scientific fact that when something explodes all particles rotate in the same direction.

many planets in our solar system don't rotate in the same direction.



"So much for your big bang" theory!

the accretion disk that formed our solar system wasnt the result of the big bang but interstellar gas and dust collapsing on itself. your argument has nothing to do with the big bang.

rotation can also be reversed by collisons.

[thispego]

this guy is good!!!